Knowledge that Transforms

How do social networks influence the decision to migrate? Prior work suggests two distinct mechanisms that have historically been difficult to differentiate: as a conduit of information, and as a source of social and economic support. We disentangle these mechanisms using a massive “digital trace” dataset that allows us to observe the migration decisions made by millions of individuals over several years, as well as the complete social network of each person in the months before and after migration. These data allow us to establish a new set of stylized facts about the relationship between social networks and migration. Our main analysis indicates that the average migrant derives more social capital from “interconnected” networks that provide social support than from “extensive” networks that efficiently transmit information.

How do people form beliefs about novel risks, with which they have little or no experience? Motivated by survey data on beliefs about COVID we collected in 2020, we build a model based on the psychology of selective memory. When a person thinks about an event, different experiences compete for retrieval, and retrieved experiences are used to simulate the event based on how similar they are to it. The model predicts that different experiences interfere with each other in recall and that non-domain-specific experiences can bias beliefs based on their similarity to the assessed event. We test these predictions using data from our COVID survey and from a primed-recall experiment about cyberattack risk. In line with our theory of similarity-based retrieval and simulation, experiences and their measured similarity to the cued event help account for experience effects, priming effects, and the interaction of the two in shaping beliefs.

Two parties negotiate in the presence of external resolution opportunities (e.g. court, arbitration, or war). The outcome of external resolution depends on the privately held justifiability/strength of their claims. A justified party issues an ultimatum for resolution whenever possible, but an unjustified party strategically bluffs with an ultimatum to establish a reputation for being justified. We show that the availability of external resolution opportunities can benefit or hurt an unjustified party in equilibrium. When the chances of being justified become negligible, agreement is immediate and efficient; and if the set of justifiable demands is rich, our solution modifies the Nash–Rubinstein bargaining solution of Abreu and Gul ((2000), Econometrica, 68, 85–117) in a simple way.

An information-based model is developed where traditional and digital advertising finance the provision of free media goods and affect price competition. Digital advertising is directed toward specific consumers while traditional advertising is undirected. The equilibrium is suboptimal. Media goods, if valued by the consumer, are under provided with both types of advertising. Additionally, traditional advertising is excessive because it is undirected. The tax-cum-subsidy policy that overcomes these inefficiencies is characterized. The model is calibrated to the U.S. economy. Through the lens of the calibrated model, digital advertising increases welfare significantly. The welfare gain from the optimal policy is much smaller than the gain from digital advertising.

How can we motivate good politicians—those that will carry out policy that is responsive to citizens’ preferences—to enter politics? In a field experiment in Pakistan, we vary how political office is portrayed to ordinary citizens. Emphasizing prosocial motives for holding political office instead of personal returns—such as the ability to help others versus enhancing one’s own respect and status—raises the likelihood that individuals run for office and that voters elect them. A year later, the treatment improves the alignment of policy with citizens’ preferences. These effects emerge only when treatments are randomly delivered in a public setting. Taken together, the results demonstrate that how politics is perceived shapes who decides to run for office, who is elected, as well the policies that democracies deliver.

This paper shows that the outcome of trade wars for tariffs and welfare will be affected by the monetary policy regime. The key message is that trade policy interacts with monetary policy in a way that magnifies the welfare costs of discretionary monetary policy in an international setting. If countries follow monetary policies of flexible inflation targeting, trade wars are relatively mild, with low equilibrium tariffs and small welfare costs. Discretionary monetary policies imply much higher tariffs, high inflation rates, and substantially larger welfare costs. We quantify the effects of a global trade war among major economies using estimates of trade elasticities, economic size, net foreign assets, and trade openness. We find large welfare benefits of an inflation targeting monetary policy for all countries.

We characterize the conditions under which a socially responsible (SR) fund induces firms to reduce externalities, even when profit-seeking capital is in perfectly elastic supply. Such impact requires that the SR fund’s mandate permits the fund to trade off financial performance against reductions in social costs—relative to the counterfactual in which the fund does not invest in a given firm. Based on such an impact mandate, we derive the social profitability index, an investment criterion that characterizes the optimal ranking of impact investments when SR capital is scarce. If firms face binding financial constraints, the optimal way to achieve impact is by enabling a scale increase for clean production. In this case, SR and profit-seeking capital are complementary: Surplus is higher when both investor types are present.

We experimentally study how individuals read strategically transmitted information when they have preferences over what they will learn. Subjects play disclosure games in which Receivers should interpret messages skeptically. We vary whether the state that Senders communicate about is ego-relevant or neutral for Receivers, and whether skeptical beliefs are aligned or not with what Receivers prefer believing. Compared to neutral settings, skepticism is significantly lower when it is self-threatening, and not enhanced when it is self-serving. These results shed light on a new channel that individuals can use to protect their beliefs in communication situations: they exercise skepticism in a motivated way, that is, in a way that depends on the desirability of the conclusions that skeptical inferences lead to. We propose two behavioural models that can generate motivated skepticism. In one model, the Receiver freely manipulates his beliefs after having made skeptical inferences. In the other, the Receiver reasons about evidence in steps and the depth of his reasoning is motivated.

In Spring 2005, the Ombud for Equal Treatment in Austria launched a campaign notifying employers and newspapers that gender preferences in job ads were illegal. At the time, over 40% of vacancies on the nation’s largest job board stated a gender preference; within a year the rate fell below 5%. We merge job board vacancies and employer records to study how the campaign affected hiring choices and the gender diversity of occupations and workplaces. Using pre-campaign data, we predict the use of gender preferences, then conduct a difference-in-differences analysis of hiring outcomes for vacancies with predicted male or female preferences, relative to those with no predicted preferences. The elimination of explicit gender preferences boosted the share of women hired for jobs that were likely to be targeted to men (and vice versa). At the firm level, we find that the campaign led to a rise in the share of women at firms that were more likely to use male stated gender preferences (SGP’s), and a symmetric increase in the share of men at firms that were likely to use female SGP’s, with no effects on firm survival, employment, or average wages.

Hundreds of millions of microenterprises in emerging economies face increased competition from the entry and expansion of large firms that offer similar products. This paper examines the impacts of the opening of chain-run convenience stores on one of the world’s most ubiquitous microenterprises: owner-operated shops. To address endogeneity in time and location of chains’ opening, I pair two-way fixed effects with a novel instrument that shifts the profitability of chains but not of shops at the neighbourhood level. Expanding the number of chain outlets from zero to the neighbourhood average of 6.7 stores reduces the number of shops by 15%, a decline driven not by increased shop exits but by decreased shop entries. Shops retain their sales of fresh products and keep 96% of their customers, but customers visit shops less frequently and spend less on packaged goods. Surviving shops leverage competitive advantages stemming from being owner operated, such as lower agency costs, cultivating relationships with neighbours, and offering customers informal credit. The welfare gains of convenience chains replacing shops increase with household income; the poorest households experience a welfare loss.